QOD

Filed in National by on July 8, 2008

Is there statistical evidence that if everyone had a gun there would be less crime?  If so, wouldn’t the same evidence point to indicate the same conclusion could be found if no one had a gun? 

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (27)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Pandora says:
    July 8, 2008 at 8:22 am

    Oh my… logic.

  2. anon says:
    July 8, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Of course there is evidence – look at Iraq. Guns all over the place, and not one documented war crime!

  3. delawaredem says:
    July 8, 2008 at 8:48 am

    I remember a West Wing episode wherein President Bartlet was shot, along with a number of his staff. The press secretary said, at a wrap up news conference on the assasination attempt:

    “President Bartlet and Joshua Lynam were not the only victims of gun violence last night. Mike Smith and Donna Something of Philadelphia were shot with a handgun last night. Dante Richards of Los Angeles was shot by a handgun last night. And if anyone thinks that these crimes would have been prevented if the victims themselves were carrying a gun, let me remind you that the President of the United States was shot last night while surrounded by the best armed guards in the history of the world.”

  4. Rebecca says:
    July 8, 2008 at 9:12 am

    I miss West Wing! Best writing ever on TV.

  5. anon says:
    July 8, 2008 at 9:13 am

    If so, wouldn’t the same evidence point to indicate the same conclusion could be found if no one had a gun?

    Probably. But it is impossible to go back to a world where nobody has a gun.

    On the other hand, it would be easy to go to a world where everybody who wants a gun can legally have one.

    If you go for a middle ground where some people have guns and some don’t, who gets to choose who gets them?

    (Answer: The people with guns get to choose).

  6. Disbelief says:
    July 8, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Safety whistles?

  7. Duffy says:
    July 8, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    “If so, wouldn’t the same evidence point to indicate the same conclusion could be found if no one had a gun? ”

    No because guns are equalizers. Without guns, the weak are preyed upon by the strong. Put a .357 in the hands of an elderly or wheelchair bound person and the playing field is much more even.

  8. CJO says:
    July 8, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    I can’t wait, gunfights at high noon in front of the townfolk.

  9. Delaware's Most Attractive Blogger says:
    July 8, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    Put a .357 in the hands of an elderly or wheelchair bound person and the playing field is much more even.

    ohhhhh duffy, you know how to make a man laugh…what about handicapped people? Mentally disabled? Minor’s? Fetus’?

  10. Duffy says:
    July 8, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Is there some reason an elderly or wheelchair bound person should not have a gun? If I lose the use of my legs is that the only right I have to forfeit or are there others? Should old people not defend themselves? Not all old people are feeble minded. My Dad is in his 70’s and he still puts them in the X ring.

    That you think people who are old and/or physically disabled are something to laugh at says more about you than me.

  11. Tom S says:
    July 8, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Your question is a hard one to answer in any real manner because we have no two places that are exactly alike save for different guns laws.

    An interested study was preformed by a fellow named John Lott (www.johnlott.org) compared counties with liberal gun laws to counties with restrictive gun laws and found that places with more liberal gun laws have steadily decreased violent crime from the years 1977 to 1994.

    All the evidence I have ever come across has indicated that places that make firearms more accessible to law abiding citizens have lower rates of violent crime.

  12. Tom S says:
    July 8, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    “ohhhhh duffy, you know how to make a man laugh…what about handicapped people? Mentally disabled? Minor’s? Fetus’?”

    Why shouldn’t a handicapped person be able to own a firearm? Does the Constitution somehow play out differently for them?

    The mentally disabled and minors are prohibited from owning firearms by the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

  13. Pandora says:
    July 8, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    DV, you are destined to be misunderstood.

  14. Von Cracker says:
    July 8, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Personally, I think the government should issue every citizen with a gun at 18…..right at the start of their obligatory National Service.

  15. mike w. says:
    July 8, 2008 at 7:01 pm

    Let’s go back to a world without guns. A world where young, strong males can terrorize the weak and elderly by way of superior brute force. A world where women and others who cannot defend themselves must beg for protection. Sounds more like the feudal system than a free country. The longbow, and later guns were revolutionary in that they empowered the weaker, most vulnerable members of society.

    As a hypothetical, take a city like D.C. or Chicago and remove all the guns. Let’s assume no one has one and no one can acquire one. The people who were killing each other with guns will still be killing at alarmingly high rates. Guns DO NOT CAUSE CRIME, no matter how much your twisted logic makes you believe otherwise.

  16. Delaware's Most Attractive Blogger says:
    July 8, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    so mikey,

    you mean everyone having a gone will solve the problems we have now? How?

  17. jen says:
    July 9, 2008 at 12:27 am

    Put a .357 in the hands of an elderly or wheelchair bound person and the playing field is much more even.

    Put a gun of this weight in the hands of the elderly or infirm, and somebody is gonna shoot themselves in the balls or kill their companion animal.

    Don’t give my Grampa a gun, please. He is already dangerous enough with his cane!!

  18. Tom S. says:
    July 9, 2008 at 4:17 am

    There is a difference between every citizen having a firearm and every citizen having the right to purchase a firearm.

    Widespread firearm ownership will not solve all the problems we have now but statistics prove it will make some problems (violent crime) better.

  19. liberalgeek says:
    July 9, 2008 at 8:11 am

    maybe everyone should have a taser. Non-lethal and able to be handled by the infirm that Mike is protecting…

  20. Delaware's Most Attractive Blogger says:
    July 9, 2008 at 8:18 am

    I vote swiss army knife

  21. mike w. says:
    July 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    DMAB – Your comments don’t even attempt to address anything I’ve said. It’s almost as if you don’t know how to read.

    A swiss army knife? Right, because a 100lb. woman is going to be able to fight off an attacker with a knife.

    All we’re talking about here is allowing citizens the ability to choose whether or not to buy a gun and carry it for protection. I never said a gun will solve all problems, but having a means of self-defense is preferrable to being a helpless victim.

    Oh, and the grandpa or handicapped person needs a gun more than anyone else. How is someone in a wheelchair supposed to fight back? How are they supposed to run away?

    My grandpa has been put in the hospital twice by thugs who tried to rob him. I have a physical disability that puts me at an immediate disadvantage against an able-bodied criminal. Are you seriously saying that the most vulnerable members of society should be denied the most effective tool for self defense? Why? because you think guns are icky?

  22. Duffy says:
    July 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    Tom S:

    I wasn’t speaking of mentally disabled people. Only physically.

    DV: The guns are here and you can’t get rid of all of them. Do you want to allow only criminals to have guns or not? Everyone armed is not ideal. Neither is everyone disarmed. Freedom is a messy thing sometimes.

  23. mike w. says:
    July 11, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    letting the non-criminals who choose to be armed do as they please and carry where they please seems like a simple, practical approach.

    If the rest of you don’t want to own or carry a gun then don’t. What’s so hard about that?

  24. Linoge says:
    July 14, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Why is it always the strawman argument of liberals that gun-owners and -advocates like myself want to “put a gun in the hand of everyone“?

    Simply put, that is not the stance of any pro-gun organization, and I doubt it is the stance of any reasonable gun owner – if I am wrong, feel free to point out the exception.

    And thus, since the question was based on a blatant fallacy, it is somewhat hard to answer it…

  25. mike w. says:
    July 15, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    “Why is it always the strawman argument of liberals that gun-owners and -advocates like myself want to “put a gun in the hand of everyone“?”

    God, If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard some anti say that. I don’t know where they get it from because I’ve never heard ANY pro-gun person / organization make that argument.

  26. Von Cracker says:
    July 15, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Kinda like the gay marriage.

    Some people want to have a gay marriage, but it certainly does not mean that everyone must have a gay marriage.

  27. mike w. says:
    July 15, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    I agree. If people want to get married, gay or straight I have no problem with it.

«
»